To Max.

Question 2. Coal and Iron ore account for 66% of Australia's exports. The insane idea from the climate cultists is that Australia must stop selling coal, which would impact our iron ore sales as well. Why do you want to destroy your own countries economy on an increasingly challenged scientific theory, which is that today's scheduled warming period can only be caused by CO2 emissions? Didn't the failure of "the coming ice age", "peak oil", "mass starvation", or the " Millenium Bug" hysterics condition you to think twice before you did a Chickenlittle impersonation that will ensure your own countries currency will end up being worth the same as a Venezuelan Bolivar?

Statement A. The UN, and especially it's Human Rights push and the IPCC has little credibility with me.

Statement B. Australia has 700 years supply of coal reserves.

Statement C. Then we will worry about that in 350 years time.

Statement D. Same answer.

Statement E. Try telling Bob Brown and the Greens that. The same morons who push HIGW are the same ones who oppose dams, nuclear power, and recently, wind turbines.

Statement E. Uranium has the same emotional connotation to greenies as "bulldozer" and "coal."

Next statement. With too many delusional but well meaning people like you and Steelie, I think the same thing. The only silver lining is that the western world is shifting more to the right because the socialite socialists and their hare brained ideas which hurts the working class, are losing the working class.

Next statement. I hope I live long enough to see your prediction fall as flat as every other preceding cultist's prediction. It's funny how they keep pushing the date for their "the end is nigh" catastrophe ever backwards.

MHAZE DARLING, HAPPY ANNIVERSARY! This all started 3 years ago TODAY when I said "Do the math!"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18793#334973

Yes there’s a range, and I accused the IPCC’s 2 degrees of being ‘political’ and said I preferred NO CARBON INCREASE above 350.

Bill McKibben even referred to the politics in the movie.
(3 minutes)
http://youtu.be/5KtGg-Lvxso

He said that if there's anything the most difficult and RECALCITRANT nations on earth believe, it's that officially 2 degrees is too much warming. You could tell he wasn't impressed with the politics.

But here's where you go wrong.

MHAZE: "Yes there is no one answer."

True, but it's just a downright lie if you try to display them on a flat range, like you try to!

MHAZE: “Now you're on this "highest probability" rubbish. Again you completely misunderstand the science and the maths. Nowhere does anyone say they took the "highest probability", because they didn't because no such thing exists. Again, you just made it up although its probably you just failed to fathom the truth. The graph you think is a probability curve is in fact a histogram of simulation outcomes. The highest point isn't more probable than those around it,” http://tinyurl.com/uwzl8ct

NASA EXPLAINED THE GRAPH!
“…the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/what-if-global-warming-isnt-as-severe-as-predicted/

BILL MCKIBBEN SAID IT IN HIS 2013 "DO THE MATH" VIDEO THAT I LINKED TO IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Here, I've cued it for you. Come on honey, listen to it, it's our anniversary! ;-) Just 30 seconds, for old time’s sake.

http://youtu.be/5KtGg-Lvxso?t=85

Did you get it? He talks about a "reasonable chance of staying below 2 degrees".

AND ONE MORE TIME FOR THE DUMMIES!

"That's not a perfect chance! That's worse odds than Russian roulette, you know."

What's this? CHANCE? PROBABILITY?

No wonder you hate the idea of PROBABILITY as the numbers start to focus.

The IPCC Summary for Policymakers Paragraph C.1.3 spells out the range AND PROBABILITIES.
420 GT carbon allowance for 1.5 degrees at 66% probability.
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

Now now Darling, don't sulk.

It's our anniversary.

Max said:
estimated 1.2 degrees per doubling for the raw increase in CO2.

Max, it is logarithmic, depends where you are on the curve, but it
gets less change every doubling of co2.

Sure BAZZ, my bad. I should have said for the first doubling, and that's all I care about at this stage. I'd HATE to see the planet after ANOTHER DOUBLING! (Over 1000ppm!)

But the Climate Sensitivity means that as CO2 doubles, climate change gets worse. CO2's initial raw effects are just one thing, the CS multiplier is something else entirely.

See my debate with MHAZE on our anniversary of all this kicking off.

Be gentle with him, he's a bit sensitive about me having left due to sheer boredom at the pointlessness of this for a few years. He keeps talking about it! ;-)

Hey Max, your nemesis is back.

Ya wanna do the math, Max? OK. Here yet again is the graph of Global temperatures for the last 10,000 years which you and your thermophobic comrade Steelie studiously refuse to even look at, much less comment upon.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNRb8_omAb_z9H4Drpt8DtjRw73uXA:1579796996679&q=images+global+temperatures+10000+years&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8oLe2kprnAhWt6XMBHfTsAOMQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085#imgrc=Dbmd7wVrr8g79M:&spf=1579797001994

I think that your 2 degree rise in temperatures is significant in terms of propagating this climate change hysteria. It just happens that the 9 climate optimums preceding our modern warming period just happen to be at least 2 degrees or higher than it is today. So those climate scientists who are pushing this fable already know that based upon the historical record, our present warming period has at least another 2 degree rise to go before we reverse into another serious ice age.

That was what they once claimed was happening in the late 60's when despite lots of CO2, global temperatures declined from 1940 t0 1970, and they were running around screaming that a new ice age was coming. But just like their laughable climate change doomsday predictions of impending catastrophe which did not pan out, they are hoping that everybody forgot that. Obviously their hopes worked out with you and Steelie.

Oh, and neither have the pair of you had the guts to look at or comment upon the other crucial graph I posted up which showed that CO2 had no causal link to global temperatures for 570 million years. Sometimes CO2 levels and temps went up together, other times one went up and the other went down. Do your maths on that.

http://www.google.com/search?biw=2021&bih=1085&tbm=isch&sxsrf=ACYBGNSlLcLAZeJ3LeDlSgmueBMng2EYCQ%3A1579797002605&sa=1&ei=CsopXuuyJJfYz7sPmLuKuAk&q=images+global+temperatures+570+million++years&oq=images+global+temperatures+570+million++years&gs_l=img.12...1246468.1256972..1259003...5.0..0.179.3546.0j24......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......35i39.ZBab1NvKM4s&ved=0ahUKEwjr36C5kprnAhUX7HMBHZidApcQ4dUDCAY#spf=1579798262238

Of course, Steelie clicked on the link but instead of looking at the graph I wanted him to look at, he did a misdirection instead by fixating upon another graph he knew he could get some mileage out of. In a way, I am glad he did that. It just goes to show how you alarmists will stand on your heads rather that examine any evidence which contradicts your religious beliefs.

Bazz,

The underlying reason you are an AGW denialist is because you do not understand the mechanics of the greenhouse effect.

You should touch base with Soot Morrison. His call name is 'Beam up me Scotty'.